A subreddit committed to intelligent understanding of the hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence progresses to the point of greater-than-human intelligence, radically changing civilization. This community studies the creation of superintelligence— and predict it will happen in the near future, and that ultimately, deliberate action ought to be taken to ensure that the Singularity benefits humanity.

On the Technological Singularity

The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence. Because the capabilities of such an intelligence may be difficult for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is often seen as an occurrence (akin to a gravitational singularity) beyond which the future course of human history is unpredictable or even unfathomable.

The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was by mathematician John von Neumann. The term was popularized by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045 whereas Vinge predicts some time before 2030.

Proponents of the singularity typically postulate an "intelligence explosion", where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, that might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human.

You seem to be assuming that if we were in a simulation that it must be an accurate representation of the "real thing".

Well yeah, that's really the fundamental assumption being made in the simulation argument. I'm the one showing that we shouldn't accept that assumption.

I don't see that assumption being implied anywhere. Nick Bostrom was only stating that we are more likely to be in a simulation, not necessarily that the simulation is a complete representation of the "real thing".

The relationship with Fermi is an interesting one though because it seems reasonable that we would naturally gravitate to simulating and studying the first instances of the singularity in the universe.

If the universe (as we know it) is a simulation representation, wouldn't the "real thing" lie outside of our universe and thus be fundamentally unknowable?

And unfalsifiable too. Now we're just going in circles.

Fair enough. The simulation argument is philosophy, not science. If you want to constrain your thinking to science, please investigate some unknown or obscure phenonenon and please take good notes. Forget about the singularity which is an idea that has little to do with science.

If I had a very powerful computer, I would set up a simulation to have the initial conditions of the big bang and program in the laws of physics. I would fast forward until a sentient intelligence had evolved. At that point I would save it and try to see if by intervention with messages into the minds of chosen sentient beings, I could speed up the process of achieving the singularity (me). Voila, I am God. ;v)